AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 632
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Central Excise and Customs, Nashik was in appeal before the Tribunal. He was aggrieved and dissatisfied with the two orders, one styled as an order-in-appeal dated 29th April, 2004 and the other styled as order-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner dated 27th May, 2003. 3. The issue before the Tribunal and raised in the Revenue's memo of appeal was whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was right in confirming the order-in-original dated 27th May, 2003. Insofar as two issues, firstly, whether the principle of unjust enrichment would apply in the event an assessment made is provisionally and on final assessment the duty liability being determined and later on meaning thereby if the assessment made is provisional and the duty amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en the only issue raised. Now, a fault cannot be found with the Tribunal's order. Hence, this appeal does not raise any substantial question of law but deserves to be dismissed. 5. On perusal of the Tribunal's order and impugned in this appeal, we are of the opinion that it deserves to be admitted, It is admitted on the following substantial questions of law :- (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of unjust enrichment are applicable in the present case? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal is correct in applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CCE v. Allied Photographics - 2004 (166) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment and informing thus to the assessee. 9. Therefore, the assessee reiterated their claim for refund in the above sum by their letter dated 13th February, 2002. 10. This was scrutinized by the Assistant Commissioner and initially he was reluctant to consider it and called upon the assessee to show cause why it should not be rejected. The asseesee gave an explanation and subsequently appeared for a personal hearing before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner passed the order-in-original and sanctioning this refund claim. In sanctioning it, he rendered a finding essentially on facts that the principle of unjust enrichment will not be attracted. He, therefore, sanctioned the refund claim. The Department tho....